Will the real 10 year cost of ObamaCare be over $6 trillion?

[The Painter]

Free at the point of use.
Check my sig for some figures.

You're kidding, right? All taxes and fees don't count because you don't pay at the doctor's office?

That's like NASA saying the walk on the moon was "free".......... at the point of use.

 

[jimbob]

You're kidding, right? All taxes and fees don't count because you don't pay at the doctor's office?

That's like NASA saying the walk on the moon was "free".......... at the point of use.

No, If you look at my sig, you will see that the NHS costs less in taxes than the current US system costs in taxes, and is universal.

OECD healthcare statistics

http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoad/OECDHealthData_FrequentlyRequestedData.xls

2007 Data

UK 8.4% of GDP of which 81.7% is state expenditure = 6.86% of GDP from taxes

US 16% of GDP of which 45.4% is state expenditure = 7.264% of GDP from taxes

My tax pounds that are spent on healthcare are more effective than your tax dollars that are spent on healthcare. And this contributes to my own health coverage, whereas someone in a similar situation to me in the US would simply be paying their taxes for other people's healthcare.

I am not advocating the NHS for the US, but other systems in the OECD also work out far cheaper than the US.

ETA: In other words, systems that are free at the point of use cost less than the current US system, and some even cost less tax, and provide universal coverage.

I can not speak for Dr Adequate, but I know of nobody who claims that healthcare systems are ever "free" except at the point of use

 

[Upchurch]

What Bush campaigned for is irrelevant. We were talking about "most of the people we elected". I don't think Bush qualifies as "most of the people we elected". At best he would qualify as only one of the people we elected.

Ah. And how many of the people elected in 2000 campaigned with a pro-premptively invade Afghanistan and then Iraq platform? Was it a central issue of the campaign, the way health care reform was in 2008?

 

[The Painter]

In other words, systems that are free at the point of use cost less than the current US system

There are systems that are free at the the point of use in the US. How would you pigeonhole those? They are at odds with your statement.

 

[volatile]

I cannot understand how the information that universal systems are cheaper per capita than the current US system comes as a surprise to someone who has been posting on this forum (and in numerous healthcare threads) for three years.

Can someone explain that curious phenomenon to me?

 

[Bob Klase]

Ah. And how many of the people elected in 2000 campaigned with a pro-premptively invade Afghanistan and then Iraq platform?

All of the people who could see into the future. I guess the people we elect should never do anything about anything unless unless it was an issue in the last election.

Was it a central issue of the campaign, the way health care reform was in 2008?

Sorry, you're too late to play move the goalposts again.

 

[tyr_13]

Sorry, you're too late to play move the goalposts again.

What are you talking about?

 

[jimbob]

There are systems that are free at the the point of use in the US. How would you pigeonhole those? They are at odds with your statement.

Universal systems that are free at the point of use.

 

[Meadmaker]

then you use your mighty powers of simulated idiocy

 

[drkitten]

They arrived at the 6 trillion figure by adjusting for two gimmicks in the democrat/CBO *analysis*. One is that the true cost of the program over a ten year period must be the cost over a period where the program is fully up and running. It shouldn't include years when the program is just collecting taxes but not expending money at the full up and running levels. Second, they recognized that if the government passes a law mandating insurance even if employers and individuals don't want it ... at the risk of fine and prison if they don't supply/purchase insurance ... then the government has in effect added an indirect tax to those businesses/individuals and ultimately the populace at large. And that's true whether or not a government representative actually lays his/her dirty hands on the money in the transaction.

And here's the answer about what part of the Cato institute's analysis was a lie.

The entire paragraph above.

 

[drkitten]

I cannot understand how the information that universal systems are cheaper per capita than the current US system comes as a surprise to someone who has been posting on this forum (and in numerous healthcare threads) for three years.

Can someone explain that curious phenomenon to me?

Because it's an article of faith among the right wing that the government cannot do anything as cheaply or as efficiently as the free market.

I say "article of faith" because as usual, reality has a left-wing bias and this particular belief is wrong, but it's held nevertheless, in the teeth of the evidence, and the Republican echo chamber simply repeats the same baseless lie over and over again in citation of each other.

Aided and abetted by deliberate deception such as the Cato institute's decision that anything consumers spend money on is a government cost, regardless of whether or not it's being paid by or to the government at all.

 

[Bob Klase]

What are you talking about?

You could have read the exchange yourself. But since you apparently didn't:

We start with a claim that we elect people to make decisions and most of the people elected are in favor of something (health care reform in this case).

We elected the people to make these decisions and most of the people we elected were for some sort of health care reform.

Then we modify the claim so it doesn't apply to decisions made by most of the people we elected if one person made counter promises in an election.

Well, you could if Bush's 2000 campaign hadn't explicitly included "no nation building" and "reducing foreign deployment".

Then we move the touchdown zone into making the initial claim only apply to things that were a central issue of a campaign.

And how many of the people elected in 2000 campaigned with a pro-premptively invade Afghanistan and then Iraq platform? Was it a central issue of the campaign, the way health care reform was in 2008?

Glad I could clear that up for ya.

 

[volatile]

I've read and participated in threads which The Painter has too; I know this has been mentioned and discussed in his direct sight. It's right there in JimBob's signature, too - with links to the raw data. And yet still he acts as if this is the first time this rather crucial nugget of information has ever crossed his desk.

I understand, of course, how right-wing discourse creates the illusion that UHC systems are more expensive, but to see someone persist in this delusion after their error has been pointed out to them is just... weird.

 

[tyr_13]

You could have read the exchange yourself. But since you apparently didn't:

We start with a claim that we elect people to make decisions and most of the people elected are in favor of something (health care reform in this case).



Then we modify the claim so it doesn't apply to decisions made by most of the people we elected if one person made counter promises in an election.



Then we move the touchdown zone into making the initial claim only apply to things that were a central issue of a campaign.



Glad I could clear that up for ya.

Wow. Thanks. Now I realize that you didn't really mean the 'moving the goalpost' thing and are just refusing to acknowledge the actual goalposts.

 

[jimbob]

then you use your mighty powers of simulated idiocy

They are indeed awesome.

Free at the point of use.
Check my sig for some figures.

You're kidding, right? All taxes and fees don't count because you don't pay at the doctor's office?

That's like NASA saying the walk on the moon was "free".......... at the point of use.

No, If you look at my sig, you will see that the NHS costs less in taxes than the current US system costs in taxes, and is universal.


My tax pounds that are spent on healthcare are more effective than your tax dollars that are spent on healthcare. And this contributes to my own health coverage, whereas someone in a similar situation to me in the US would simply be paying their taxes for other people's healthcare.

I am not advocating the NHS for the US, but other systems in the OECD also work out far cheaper than the US.

ETA: In other words, systems that are free at the point of use cost less than the current US system, and some even cost less tax, and provide universal coverage.
I can not speak for Dr Adequate, but I know of nobody who claims that healthcare systems are ever "free" except at the point of use

And the mightiest comeback:

There are systems that are free at the the point of use in the US. How would you pigeonhole those? They are at odds with your statement.

"The US medical system" is not free at the point of use, parts of it are.

That is a reference to the entire healthcare system at the point of delivery.


Now I'll just pretend that this exchange hasn't taken place, and I'll ask the following questions:

Does the US system cost the US taxpayer more in tax than the NHS costs the UK taxpayer?

Does anyone know the proportion of US taxpayers who qualify for some form of state-subsidised healthcare?

What about the UK (100%)?

Do I get better value for my tax pounds for my own use than a person in the US on a similar wage?

 

[Ausmerican]

They are indeed awesome.






And the mightiest comeback:



"The US medical system" is not free at the point of use, parts of it are.

That is a reference to the entire healthcare system at the point of delivery.

The whole "free" sidetrack is even more annoying as it was obvious to anyone reading the thread that you were responding to carlitos and using the same terminology that he was using.
Why The Painter didn't feel the need to go all 'Sematic Police' on him is puzzling.
Oh wait, no it isn't, he either didn't read the thread or he happens to agree with the other post.

ETA: When you also consider that the original post of Dr A's that he responded to quoted carlitos I guess it is option B.

 

[The Painter]

What carlitos said was a joke. It's been going around the states for a few months. Maybe you were not aware. Yes I know the system in the UK is less than in the US. Did I say it wasn't? BFD a KIA is less expensive than a Mercedes. Yes I'm comparing UK health care to a KIA. Just because your government run heath is cheaper does not mean the US government run health care will be cheaper. It's not the same.

Here is New York government run Off Track Betting is going bankrupt. A bookie going bankrupt, unheard of. Horse betting is a cash cow. Only the government could screw that up. Only the government will bankrupt the country with its health care. Even the Chinese asked Obama where is he getting the money for health care and how will it be spent. Oh, in case you don't know, we owe the Chinese a lot of money.

Anyway, lets get back to your ad hominem attacks on me. They're so much more fun.

 

[jimbob]

What carlitos said was a joke. It's been going around the states for a few months. Maybe you were not aware. Yes I know the system in the UK is less than in the US. Did I say it wasn't? BFD a KIA is less expensive than a Mercedes. Yes I'm comparing UK health care to a KIA. Just because your government run heath is cheaper does not mean the US government run health care will be cheaper. It's not the same.

Here is New York government run Off Track Betting is going bankrupt. A bookie going bankrupt, unheard of. Horse betting is a cash cow. Only the government could screw that up. Only the government will bankrupt the country with its health care. Even the Chinese asked Obama where is he getting the money for health care and how will it be spent. Oh, in case you don't know, we owe the Chinese a lot of money.

Anyway, lets get back to your ad hominem attacks on me. They're so much more fun.

There are a couple of points in this.
Firstly I am not denying that the US system works well for anyone with unlimited resources.

However for the vast majority of the population, the evidence is that they suffer a worse system than in the other OECD countries.

secondly the UK government is not renowned for it's efficiency, yet it manages to run a system that is far more efficient than the US version. (In measures of life expectancy at birth, and cost, for example). If the UK can do it, the US has the competence.


OK lets compare the KIA and the Merc:

Easycruise, any discussion about the problems in the US?


I seem to recall that actually in the US, amongst the uninsured, the dental care is pretty poor to...

I'll try to find figures.

Here's another reason we need some pretty drastic health insurance regulations.

This supplemental memo (pdf) summarizing the findings of the House committee's investigation of rescission reads about like a transcript of Sicko.

It's deplorable that people can dutifully pay their premiums for years, even decades, and then basically be cancelled when they get seriously (expensively) sick.

Some shocking instances covered in the executive summare of the PDF:

Insurance companies rescind coverage even when discrepancies are unintentional or caused by others. In one case reviewed by the Committee, a WellPoint subsidiary rescinded coverage for a patient in Virginia whose insurance agent entered his weight incorrectly on his application and failed to return it to him for review. The company's Associate General Counsel warned that the agent's actions were "not acceptable" and recommended against rescission, but she was overruled.
• Insurance companies rescind coverage for conditions that are unknown to policyholders. In 2004, Fortis Health, now known as Assurant, rescinded coverage for a policyholder with lymphoma, denying him chemotherapy and a life-saving stem cell transplant. The company located a CT scan taken five years earlier that identified silent gall stones and an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm, but the policyholder's doctor never informed him of these conditions. After direct intervention from the Illinois Attorney General's Office, the individual's policy was reinstated.

Hard to disagree with the summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Last year, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform initiated an investigation into problems with the individual health insurance market. This year, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, continued that investigation. This memorandum presents the Committee's findings.

The Committee sent document requests to 50 state insurance commissioners and three health insurance companies that provide individual health insurance policies, Assurant Health, WellPoint, Inc., and UnitedHealth Group. The Committee obtained approximately 116,000 pages of documents and interviewed numerous policyholders who had their coverage terminated,
or "rescinded," after they became ill.

The Committee's investigation demonstrates that the market for individual health insurance in the United States is fundamentally flawed. - -

ETA: and a bit more:

Insurance companies have evaluated employee performance based on the amount of money their employees saved the company through rescissions. The Committee obtained an annual performance evaluation of the Director of Group Underwriting at WellPoint. Under "results achieved" for meeting financial "targets" and improving financial "stability," the review stated that this official obtained "Retro savings of $9,835,564" through rescissions. The official was awarded a perfect "5" for "exceptional
performance."

In written testimony for today's hearing, all three insurance companies stated that the passage of comprehensive health care reform legislation, including a system where coverage is available to everyone and all Americans are required to participate, would eliminate the controversial practices of denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and rescinding policyholders for omissions in their medical records.

The US system isn't a Merc. A closer analogy would be a fake Rolex at real-Rolex prices.

American healthcare is in truth already rationed

Growing up sick in the US, and being treated by a humane NHS here, has shown me that Britain's system is far better

 

[volatile]

What carlitos said was a joke. It's been going around the states for a few months. Maybe you were not aware. Yes I know the system in the UK is less than in the US. Did I say it wasn't?

Yes. Twice:

You're kidding, right? All taxes and fees don't count because you don't pay at the doctor's office?

That's like NASA saying the walk on the moon was "free".......... at the point of use.

There are systems that are free at the the point of use in the US. How would you pigeonhole those? They are at odds with your statement.

 

[Ausmerican]

It is funny that a lot of Mercedes drivers seem to pull into the Canadian and Mexican drive thru for their meds. Lots seem to be adopting that trend of going over seas for a tune up while they are on vacation as well. Are you saying then, that perhaps the Mercedes is overrated to own/drive?

Having lived for 30 years drivng an Australian Holden and the last decade plus with a Mercedes here in the States, I gotta tell ya the Holden handled better and got more value for the money.

BTW, Mercedes is a German car they have UHC. Perhaps you meant to compare the Kia to a Pinto?